User talk:Gwen Gale: Difference between revisions

Are you here because I deleted your article? Please read through this first to find out why.

Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Hi Gwen I've recently encountered a user which is Urabahn seems to have the same pattern as Fclass. In the article African American he removes information pertaining to genetics relating to many African Americans having both European and Native American backgrounds. I chose to avoid the user and just let you know. The information he keeps removing is clearly sourced from reliable sources and is stated from historians and geneticists who have proven information that is in the section to be inaccurate.Mcelite (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was him. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I altered the templates to reflect that he has been blocked indefinitly.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]] go well. Bali ultimate (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. By the way, when linking to a page by URL (external link), use single brackets like this...

• [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#How_to_link] - here's how it would/should look: [2]

...not double brackets as used for a wikilink...

• [[WP:wikilink]] - here's how it looks, as you know: WP:wikilink

Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Here's another. I think this is the format? [3]

Best. Bali ultimate (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more, I think (this one im 95% for certain on rather than 100%). [4]] Bali ultimate (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extra bracket there :) Truth be told, if you would wlink to the user names themselves (User:Claude La Badarian and User:Ep1997), it would be easier. Even easier, wrap them in {{checkuser|username}}:

• Claude La Badarian (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ep1997 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Thanks! Gwen Gale (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the first and one other, dunno about Ep1997 though. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified both tags to reflect the block status of the sockpuppets.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I've reverted my last edit, as the second sock has not yet been blocked.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I do think we'd need to see a bit more from that one. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was another socky. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also stumbled upon (and blocked) User:JonJericoe yesterday. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the template to reflect the block, and added it to the talk page as well.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for takin' care of those. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DFW tragedy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) This diff is the clincher, with its overwrought i want to be hunter thompson language. [5] Bali ultimate (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, don't get me started on Hunter Thompson/Jack Nicholson wannabee copycats :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, erm, quack and so on, another sleeper by the bye. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CU got those and their little dog too (about 10 more). And here's a new one [6] thanks and best. Bali ultimate (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone did warn me there would be many, many ducks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

he must be off his meds this week. BillDeanCarter_is_the_man_is_the_man (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Bali ultimate (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No such username (check spelling?) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. BillDeanCarter is the man (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have breached specific policy requirement of WP:ADMIN concerning the need to "provide the appropriate user(s) with suitable prior warnings and explanations of their administrative actions". Your entry "a long, steady pattern of incivility" without diffs to examples of such a pattern, or to a prior warning by an admin apart from one 11 minutes earlier by MZMcBride, appears not to satisfy the meaning of "explanation". I note that the prior warning stated "Please don't do so again", and that the editor you blocked did not "do so again".

The use of blocking without appropriate warning has been made worse by your failure to explain why the title of the image in question—the wording of the prior warning by MZMcBride—is entirely inappropriate and why a three-day block, indeed a block of any duration, was appropriate. MZMcBride himself has not breached the policy on explaining admin actions because he did not perform an admin action: you did.

Thus, you appear to have breached second policy tenet concerning the use of blocking: "Blocks should be used only to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia" and "the decision to block an editor should not be taken lightly or as a first resort. An admin should resort to blocking only if other means are unlikely to be effective". At the very least, an explanation is required of what "damage or disruption" was being caused by the title. Tony (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken, the block was wholly preventative and he'd been straightforwardly warned by me at least twice, commented upon by many others. His block appeal was declined by another admin. He then abused his talk page and his block was lengthened to one week by a member of arbcom, who also locked the page and shut down the user's email. Hence, three admins have agreed on this block. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have not addressed my points. Where exactly did you warn him twice, and when? The diffs are a necessary part of an "explanation", and are critical to judging which block is the "prior" one (MZMcBride's is the obvious one, but you seem to be referring to others), and thus whether your block was within the policy in this respect. You have not addressed my query as why the title of the image "Clerk.jpg" was at all worthy of a block. I see another admin below your entry claiming that the title was "harrassment". This needs to be explained.

The matter is a serious one, since several major tenets of the policy are at issue, and a number of editors have said that the block was "outrageous", "way out of proportion". I'm waiting to hear first about the "title".

"It was up to him to appeal the block. Instead, he abused his talk page and his block was lengthened by a member of arbcom, who also locked the page and shut down the user's email." Yes, we'll get to those issues in due time. I'm starting with your role in this. I do hope that you feel able to cooperate. Where is the "abuse" on his talk page? Tony (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All your points have already been thoroughly addressed, whatever you might assert otherwise. Three admins have had something to do with this block. If the user wants to appeal his block further, he'll need to email arbcom off-wiki. If you want more input on this, please take it to WP:ANI or start an RfC. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is quite simply outrageous. That is exactly the sort of stonewalling and bureaucratic buck passing which gives admin a bad name. Your non-explanation of how "[t]hree admins have had something to do with this block" does not address the fundamental issue being raised. Without an adequate explanation, this just amounts to a cabal in action. I am aware of the shenanigans where you appear to be taking sides with a possible troll, and your action here in a totally unrelated case on a flimsy pretext. You appear to be blocking just because you can. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outrageous? What's outrageous is that you don't take care to review the entire situation before you enter it. Do you even know what user this thread is about, or are you just taking up this thread to scream admin abuse? The fact of the matter is that three uninvolved admins reviewed the block and agreed with it. Just because an admin agrees with another's actions does not mean there is some kind of hidden Cabal. You can't just accuse of everyone being in some hidden group because they disagree with you. Try reviewing all the material before you get involved with something like this.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I will do that, but would rather settle the matter here. You have not satisfied the requirement for explaining the block after the event, nor have you located the diffs so that your decision can be judged by anyone who comes along. Nor have you explained why the title "Clerk" warranted a block. Please do this now. Tony (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told, there is no need for me to go over this with you and what's more, the block went altogether out of my hands when User:Rlevse, who is a member of arbcom, further lengthened the block to a week. Tell Greg to email arbcom off-wiki, if he likes (although I glark he'll read this soon himself). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong on that. First things first: you made a block in breach of the rules, and we'll deal with the others in due course. It's not like passing a football from one to the other. As for your petulant comment "there's no need for me to go over this with you", wrong again—as an admin, you're very much bound to explain your actions ("promptly", actually), and to retain the trust of the community. You are showing signs that you should yourself be disciplined as an admin. Rather than being rude, you might simply read WP:ADMIN and remind yourself of your obligations. One way or another, we will need to resolve the breaches. Tony (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken. I've already said what you and Greg can do next. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, take this somewhere else, okay? RfC, ANI, whatever you want to do. You've both said your piece here, it's starting to be a bit harassing on your part. Thanks! Tan | 39 16:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're the one who branded the posting of the picture in question as "harrassment", aren't you. Is that your modus operandi now? Gwen steadfastly fails to adhere to the policy, and has ended up harrassing Greg L, it seems, through a blocking that breaches the admin rules. I think you should choose a different line from the "harrassment" one, every so often. Tony (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, I am completely uninvolved with this issue (except for trying to politely ask you to take this to the next step and off this talk page, whatever that step may be). I wasn't aware I used the term "harassment" (you might want to note the spelling) too much; I'll try to tone that down from now on. Tan | 39 16:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I confused you with another username. However, hurling "harassment" around under such circumstances is not a tactic I have any respect for. Tony (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, Hersfold said that. As with most, if not all of your assertions, that one was also mistaken. You should now either take this elsewhere, or rather more helpfully to the project, drop it altogether. It's mostly up to Greg, to contact arbcom. I do wish you all the best. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, lets just drop all the sniping here, everyone. Tony, there's several other forums that are appropriate for the escalation of this issue, if you see fit (and I assume you do see fit). You tried to resolve it here, that didn't work, now you're just har - uh, making bitter comments to Gwen without solving anything. Tan | 39 16:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She needs you to weigh in, does she? I'm most dissatisfied with her responses, particularly her total failure to address the breaches. This she is bound to do by WP:ADMIN, and you are a little out of order in trying to choke off this conversation. Whether I take this further is, after all, my business, and I won't be brow-beaten into backing off. Good night. Tony (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good night. Tan | 39 17:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How not to help someone

It's mostly up to a blocked editor to appeal their own block. Aside from this, it's ok to ask about why someone has been blocked, but it's not ok to come barging onto someone's talk page, start a thread straight off called Breach of admin policy, then begin making unsupported claims and mistakenly quoting other editors with nary a diff to back them up, likewise any claims such as "quite simply outrageous" or "stonewalling."

This strayed far beyond the pale of WP:Civil and WP:AGF. Had the editor begun this thread in a civil, polite, AGF way, asking for diffs of warnings and blockable behaviour (along with why the behaviour was taken to be blockable by at least three admins), I would've been happy to give them and talk about it but this kind of wanton incivility and lack of any assumption as to good faith throws off strong hints of wikilawyering, with the whole thing spinning off into a disruptive waste of time.

Wikipedia is a very forgiving website. The blocked editor could have gotten himself swiftly unblocked by me with but an acknowledgement of understanding and a word that he would stop doing things which have been taken as uncivil, or at least try. Instead, he went on the attack, as he has done before: Another admin declined the unblock and yet another admin lengthened the block to a week, shutting down both his talk page and email. Incivility does chavel to any open editing project, which is why we don't put up with it here (never mind when an editor who has been uncivil comes to understand this and does something about it, any worries can and often will dwindle very fast).

I'll end with a tip. I've found that very few blocked editors ever bother to read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Following this guide will work like "magick" with most admins, who often find themselves clutching at straws of hope when a blocked or worrisome editor lets slip even a clue they have one about how Wikipedia can carry forward day by day. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the existence of the Guide; although I have no need for it personally, in terms of contributing to the review of WP's policy and procedure concerning the appealing of blocks and admin behaviour that surrounds them, it is relevant.

Are you addressing to me your accusations of "wanton incivility" and failure to assume good faith? I'm uncertain of your meaning, but if I am "the editor" you refer to, I believe you have serious problems of attitude and should consider taking a rest from admin duties. If that really were your meaning, I would adviseyou to be rather more careful in expressing such aggressive accusations. You are expected to set an example to others (as required by the policy), and are duty-bound to discuss your admin actions when queried by an editor. Please read the policy page. However, if I have misinterpreted your intended meaning, I apologise for my assumptions.

I am perplexed by the subtitle of this section. My posts above did not directly concern the prospect of appealing the block; that is indeed up to Greg, and I think he accepts that he erred in baiting Ryan Postlethwaite with the image of himself blind-drunk that he chooses to post on his talk page.

By contrast, my focus is on what appears to be your breach of admin policy in failing to communicate properly, and possibly not to have considered the other aspects of blocking and admin policy (although that is hard to determine, since you didn't adequately communicate your justification). You seem more concerned to shift the focus onto other admins, but it is your behaviour that I have raised as an issue here, not theirs.

I totally reject your rebuke that "it's not ok to come barging onto someone's talk page [to discuss such a matter]". That you, like all admins, are bound by WP's WP:ADMIN policy is a matter for the community as a whole. I have to speak plainly in asserting that you are out of order in instructing me that I may not challenge your behaviour.

I'm surprised that you find it not within yourself to accept that you need to pay more attention to doing the "paperwork" involved in blocking someone, particularly a well-established editor—although the policy makes no distinction on that count. If you had responded more positively, I'd have shut up and thought ... That Gwen Gale is someone I can respect and trust as an admin. However, I'm left thinking that you have no intention of taking admin policy seriously in the future, at least WRT the matters I've raised here. That is my tip to you. Tony (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're baiting. Begone. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I am criticising your failure to follow WP:ADMIN, however you want to try to wriggle out of it. I do not bait people, since that would be a waste of both your and my time. Your "expert" friend below adds nothing, I'm afraid: what is remarkable is how your associates come to offer support with absolutely no substantive reasoning. Tony (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yes you are, your comments calling for her to relinquish her admin rights are clearly baiting.

Tony, do all of us a favor and either leave this place, or actually provide an argument in less than 500 words. Below, as you can see, Gwen clearly warned this user twice before she blocked him for obvious incivility. So your point above how you can't find the diffs. Well there they are, so again; stop crying admin abuse, your argument has been crushed, since it all hinged upon whether or not she warned him, and she obviously did warn him.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, yes, you were baiting her when you told her to step down from her admin duties. You're just like spotfixer, you just look for any excuse to issue ultimatiums. And don't deny this, the following sentence will be a direct quote from your paragraph above: I believe you have serious problems of attitude and should consider taking a rest from admin duties..

So far as I've seen, you're the one with the attitude; you come onto this page demanding that Gwen is abusing her admin power because she blocked a user you were friends with. If anything, you have a clear conflict of interest here, and should just leave, perhaps ask for a fourth comment, because, as we all know, so far three other uninvolved admins have agreed with the block.

But as I was saying, you come on here demanding diffs that what, I can find in less then ten seconds? Again, the only thing you could possibly be doing is looking for a fight, as I'm pretty sure that if you actually gave it say, a few seconds, you could find the diffs I cearly cited below.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is WP:ADMIN that requires proper explanation of a blocking, and that blocking be used as a last resort. Like many editors, I am just keen to see that the policy is observed. It has nothing to how many seconds it took you to find a few diffs, and since the admin's comment made it clear that the incident was part of a history of incivility (words to that effect), I'd expect at the very least a diff to a previous warning or warnings. This is not just a courtesy to the blocked editor or to those who might need to scrutinise the justification, but an essential part of due process. I have little further time for responses here, but I suppose I will have to return if my good faith is again thrown into doubt. Adminship, may I remind you, is a privilege, and requires the trust of the community (a policy requirement). Tony (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, please step away from the horse carcass. If you still feel you have a complaint, please take it to the proper venue. This isn't productive to continue here. Dayewalker (talk) 07:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"disruptive waste of time"

As an expert in rhetorical analysis, I concur with the section title "How not to help someone," and this one. Proofreader77 (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. BTW, expertise is not required to see that a breach in the policy has occurred. Tony (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs for Osomething and Tony

Here is the first diff, with Greg L deleting it with an attack, no less.

Here is the second diff, with Greg removing it again, basically noting he read it.

So, Tony, I found these diffs in less than a few seconds, yet you come to Gwen's page and cry abuse because you can't take the time yourself to find them? The user was warned against incivility, and was blocked for further incivility, period. There is no admin abuse, there is no baiting, except by you, and the other user whose username starts with an O.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather too late, I'm afraid. My point was that Gwen Gale failed to provide the required documentation at the time of the blocking. Tony (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go off and re-read WP:DICK, WP:POINT, and WP:IDONTGETIT (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not getting it, but was that in reference to my post, or?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(pretty sure it was obviously not about your post!) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daedalus, I glark Bwilkins was dropping a hint elsewhere. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had to be sure, I don't always easily pick up on things.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These last few comments have the semblance of some extremely childish games: we all know it's not a hint at all. That was a remarkably thinly veiled personal attack, if ever I saw one. By all means read WP:DICK, WP:POINT, and WP:IDONTGETIT again, wilkins - I'm always surprised what I learn when reading stuff, and I hope you find similar enlightenment. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohconfucius

Do not refactor my comments, this is your last warning, as I'm assuming bad faith of you since you and this other user are doing nothing but disrupt with this call of admin abuse.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a little too threatening for my liking. You are bound by the admin policy to set an example in assuming good faith and refraining from personal attack. Milder language would have been appropriate. Please read WP:ADMIN. Tony (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening? Oh please, back the hell off, try reading WP:DICK yourself, as you really are being one. Also, try actually researching a subject before you comment on it, I'm not an admin, I'm user. Get your facts straight, and stop thinking you're right, because you aren't. Several people have told this now, so unless you want to find yourself in a block for disruptive behavior, I suggest you stop, now.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bound by admin policy because I am not an admin.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may have said lastly, or some such, but I don't believe I'm quite finished just yet; Too threatening for your liking? Please just shut up now, I'm sick of this disruptive trolling of yours on this talk page, I'm pretty sure others are as well, either way, it does not matter what you think here, as the behavior cited by this comment is not allowed, period. We have policy here at wikipedia against refactoring comments, I suggest you read it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me, your courtesy is much appreciated -- I'll just let this take its course without any comment from me, I think. I'm not sure if everyone would think this is realistic, but I'll actually hope to learn something from this and won't get in the way of that by justifying myself in hindsight. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was spot on a speedy, that ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I actually agree, but I definitely think I could have been more ... circumspect in my edit summary. This is the first time I've ever interacted with Mr. Wales, and that was interesting, although it made me a bit anxious. Definitely no more edit summaries where I come off as snarky! Thanks again for bringing this to my attention. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the edit summary was a wee bit snarky, but not untowards. As you have now learned, sometimes, a disgruntled editor may snatch on anything at all like that, in hopes of wedging something their way. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Hertha thiele.jpg. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.

An administrator will review this file within a few days, and having considered the opinions placed on the image page, may delete it in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion or remove the tag entirely. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded 3 1/2 years ago! Done, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hertha thiele.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hertha thiele.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the image since the copyright holder, if any, is unknown and I've not a clue as to how much time it might take to get and reliably source a name. Thanks for keeping after this and nudging me about it. The image was uploaded years ago when we weren't so stern about this, so I find this outcome understandable. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Might I inveigle you to look at Fascism where there is a major attempt by "The Four Deuces" and "Spylab" to remove all material which does not fit their personal political views despite being fully sourced? This is ongoing, and may be related to other problems I am having with Mattnad and his possible sock, and Inclusionist/Ikip/prior socks (sigh). The style of wikilinking every single word is reminiscent of someone, to be sure. Merci! Collect (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eek! These high profile humanities articles about politics are canny tough, given the sources themselves are often flawed and wholly good faith editors might not know how to give them fitting weight. If you can give me some diffs, tell me what you think is worrisome about each and let me know if you think there are socks about, I can likely help. Otherwise, there may not be much I can do. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know the feeling <g>. Try [7] where fully sourced material is deleted, [8] where he wikilinks every word he can find <g>, [9] and more deletion. All in a sequence this morning. Yesterday [10] deletion of sourced quote, and on 17 Feb to insist on using his own OR and SYN [11] without the pretext of a cite for it <g>. And a bunch of stuff prior, of course. Lots of fun to be sure dealing with such. Again, thanks! Collect (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the first diff indeed shows a deletion of sourced content, which is mostly not allowed, or shouldn't be allowed, if the source in any way can be taken as reliable. Scattered, sourced PoVs are more than ok, they're helpful, the more the merrier. The second, wanton wikilinking, looks pointy to me. The third does not look to me like a deletion of content but rather, he's put a quote into the inline reference. As to the fourth diff, he likely shouldn't be removing those OR tags (moreover since it does look like he's spanning). Have you tried talking to him about it? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does a cat like milk? <g> Sorry for one bad diff. If you look at Talk -- he even claims that the word "disagreement" is wrong <g>. [12] which I found a bit outre. (no accent on this keyboard -- I had one person complain even <g>). So much for really discussing with him. Collect (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, ayant parlé les deux en famille quand j'étais une petite gamine, je crois que c'est plus facile si on ne fait pas la mélange (sauf Franglais entre-copines ou quoi, mais c'est une autre histoire, vache! :) Anyway, only for starters, try finding a word other than disagreement for the text (like "there are sundry takes...") and let me know what happens. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may try -- meanhile I added Art Buchwald's "Le Grande Thanksgiving" as a footnote for the Franglais article <g>. I trust you will enjoy it. Collect (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, hardy eald Kilometres Deboutish, some foggy twinge tells me I've read that before. Buchwald spent time in Paris when he was young, I think in the late 40s, early 50s, a canny fit time to be an American in Paris, I've been told. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Originally written for the NY Herald Tribune in 1952 -- [13] -- he stayed there until 1962. Collect (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They owned the International Herald Tribune in Paris for which he worked for awhile and which still lurks on newstands this side of the pond but I don't know anyone who reads it other than older American blokes who may only dimly grok it can be had for free on the web, not that it's a bargain at that price or anything. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this since i'm watching your page. The next-to-last iteration of the IHT was great. It was jointly owned by the New York Times and the Washington Post, and in practice this mean the best of both papers with a smattering of the IHT's own reporting. A few years ago the New York Times bought out the Post, and now it's just an inferior version of the Times (I suspect those old americans are actually buying it for an intelligent reason; the NYT crossword. The English crosswords are very hard for us, and I suspect vice versa).Bali ultimate (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I was little, I'd spread the IHT out on my lap and read like mad. As for crosswords, when I was into them, I did a few in the Times. I've heard that one's gone downhill lately...? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could never do the London Times' one; too culturally specific (or rather, perhaps, I was too parochial). When i was younger and interested in crosswords clues like "number of teeth on Nobby Stiles upper jaw" were over my head). By the way, CU in case you're interested [14] Bali ultimate (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobby? He had he's got not a one! Everybody knows that! Saw it, BTW. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes along the lines of "what color was George Washington's white horse?" But if you didn't know, pre-internet you weren't going to easily find out.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at Nobby's article, oops, I thought he was dead! Wasn't GW's horse named Trigger? :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are now noted as a Heinlein fan. GW had a number of horses, but apparently "Old Nelson" was one. Trigger was Roy Rogers. Champion was Gene Autry and Topper was Hopalong Cassidy. I neer heard of Nobby Stiles. For two points, who was the best educated sidekick in old westerns? Collect (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew about trigger, I was only kiddin' :D ...My knowledge of Tom Mix is kinda strong (long, twisted tale as to why) but otherwise, I don't know much about old American westerns, <rant> other than that they've always bored me to tears, but maybe for the horses I guess, although, if I'm in the unwonted mood, I like big swaths of Once Upon a Time in the West and For a Few Dollars More but those are hardly American.</rant> Ok so, who was the best educated sidekick in old westerns? Oh! Oh! I forgot, I've always liked High Noon, but for when they "sling lead" towards the end :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gabby Hayes was well educated -- and retired until the crash of 1929 when he had to go back to work. Apparently a quite extraordinary man who gave Fred Rogers one of his first jobs. Are you following l'affaire Ikip at all? His page at User:Ikip/guests has some unusual and blunt advice (which is, IMHO, beyond the Pale) for acting on WP. Collect (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gabby Hayes, oh, yes, I've heard about him. Character actor. Took Roy's advice and bought a bit of Southern California real estate.

I don't see any personal attacks on Ikip's bloggy sub-page. Although letting all those thoughts flap about on one's sleeve might seem a bit untowards, it looks to me like he's at about "level 3" or whatever of sorting out for himself how and why things happen here as they do. If he gets stuck on that take, he'll find unhappiness as an editor, but it looks to me as though his thoughts on the topic might grow. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the bit about how and when to deliberately use a sock puppet? Considering he has been caught using one in the past, I would have thought he would avoid any hint of such. Collect (talk)

I missed that and I didn't know he'd been caught socking. Truth be told, I skimmed because my eyes started glazin' over, but I didn't want to ask you for diffs. If you think there's a worry though and you have a few minutes, diffs'll help. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MEGO? [15] contains: Make controversial edits such as page deletions with socks accounts, but always make sure to never edit the page as an anon, and when using your anon account always use spell check to avoid detection (Firefox has the feature automatically).
Every few months the edit cache is dumped so there will be no IP evidence that you were a sock after a few months. A more elaborate scheme is to get an IP anonymizer and create several accounts, editing different articles in different themes that you are interested in (For example, have a politics account, a movie account, a favorite books account, your home city and/or state account). But make sure to follow How to become and admin which each different account. To throw off suspicion, make sure to talk to yourself on talk pages occasionally. After a couple of months, as those editors are elected by yourself to be admins, you are now free to build consensus on Wikipedia as you please.< !--As wikipedia becomes more established and main stream, organizations and people will do this tactic. I bet a million dollars several people and organizations already do-- > and some more rather WP-unfriendly material. Collect (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I did see that and thought it was the same, mossy old, "my un-stained eyes have been opened and woe is me in my anger" parody of socking I've seen on a dozen user pages before. Given you say he's been caught socking, which I didn't know, do you truly think he's writing a How to Chavel Wikipedia in 10 E-Z Steps thingy? Or rather, is he spilling his untowards deeds for the world to hear, that he might soar forth in renewed worthiness? Or is he only being lame? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder a bit -- he is one of the only people who asked to be blocked indefinitely I can think of -- he is definitely "interesting" if you look at his record. Right now the canvassing he has done/is doing seems to be occupying his time, but I wonder just how long things will go before some sort of explosion. Collect (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See youtube.com/watch?v=O4KMk6T5mQU Gwen Gale (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your email.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have got you involved in the whole Thunderbird/Fgnaton mess ... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the other user, but no worries, that's what I'm here for. As often happens in those tangles, all "sides" were doing stuff maybe they shouldn't have been doing. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]